New Research Reveals How 'Victim Signaling' Damages Reputations

Researchers Karl Aquino and Stefan Thau explain the reasons why people who signal themselves as victims are viewed less favorably than those who don’t.

By Mark Travers, Ph.D. | November 14, 2025

A new study published in Personality and Individual Differences examined the phenomenon of "victim signaling": the act of deliberately highlighting one's experience of harm or disadvantage to others. Across four studies involving more than 1,400 participants, researchers explored how such signals influence the way others perceive the person expressing them. Their findings reveal a consistent, and often uncomfortable, pattern: people who publicly reference their suffering tend to be judged more harshly than those who don't.

I recently spoke with Professors Karl Aquino and Stefan Thau, the lead authors of the study, about what drives these judgments and how political ideology shapes our reactions to these signals. Here's a summary of our conversation.

The term "victim signaling" can sound provocative. How do you define it in psychological terms?

Karl Aquino: We define victim signaling as an intentional communication that highlights one's experience of harm, disadvantage or injustice in order to make that status salient to an audience. In signaling-theory terms, it's a cue that reduces observers' uncertainty that "I was harmed," which can elicit recognition, support or redress. The content and medium vary — personal narratives, public statements, formal complaints — but the common thread is the deliberate invitation to be seen as a victim of harm.

Stefan Thau: Importantly, we separate the experience of harm from the act of signaling harm. Many people suffer but do not signal; others signal in ways that differ in strength (e.g., explicit accusations versus quieter references). Our studies focus on those deliberate communicative acts, not on whether the underlying harm is true or false.

How is it different from simply expressing distress or seeking help?

Thau: Expressing distress can be purely emotional ("I'm struggling"), and help-seeking can be instrumental ("Can you assist me with X?"). Victim signaling specifically frames the distress as harm caused (often undeserved), which invites an attribution — "This person is a victim" — and potentially a claim on resources, status or moral standing. That framing is what we studied because it changes how observers infer character and intentions.

Aquino: So, you can seek help without signaling victimhood, and you can signal victimhood without requesting help. The reputational consequences we document attach to the signaling frame more than to the mere presence of need.

Could you explain the difference between "contentious" and "subtle" forms of victim signaling, and how you operationalized those in your experiments?

Aquino: We use "contentious" to describe strong signals: explicit claims of injustice with threats or demands attached. For example, in Study 2, a vignette employee alleges gender discrimination and threatens legal action if compensation isn't increased. That's a high-salience cue, inviting the audience to recognize him as a victim and to remedy it. By contrast, "subtle" signals are lighter claims: referencing injustice or barriers without an explicit accusation or demand. In Study 4's hiring simulation, a candidate begins his motivation statement with "As someone who has experienced injustice…," a softer cue that still frames identity via harm.

Thau: We also varied signaling outside HR contexts. In Study 3, a restaurant owner either foregrounds barriers tied to race (signal) or explicitly rejects that such barriers held him back (non-signal). And in Study 1 (real employee–coworker dyads), we measured the frequency of signaling behaviors using a validated scale — how often people say things like "I was held back by external forces." That let us test downstream perceptions in everyday work.

Across all four studies, signalers were evaluated more negatively than non-signalers with similar circumstances. What does this suggest about how society interprets public expressions of suffering?

Thau: Two things. First, audiences don't just hear a plea; they infer traits from the act of signaling (e.g., entitlement or Machiavellian intent) and they adjust expectations about behavior, such as counterproductive work behavior, ethics or leadership suitability. Second, these inferences are probabilistic, not absolute; mean ratings weren't "extreme," but they reliably shifted negative relative to non-signalers. That's a reputational cost worth acknowledging.

Aquino: At a societal level, there's a tension between norms that encourage help for the harmed and norms that punish perceived free-riding. Signaling can activate both, and in ambiguous cases (e.g., unverifiable, "invisible" harms), observers may default to skepticism or cost-avoidance. Our findings suggest that how harm is framed matters for social evaluation, even when the underlying circumstances are comparable.

How do you interpret the finding that political beliefs moderated these judgments — liberals were less likely than conservatives to attribute dark traits to victim signalers?

Aquino: In Studies 3 and 4, conditions emerged when signals referenced group-based injustice. Relative to conservatives, liberals were less inclined to map those signals onto dark-trait inferences. In one case, liberals even judged the non-signal (explicit rejection of victimhood) more harshly on certain traits. This aligns with broader ideological differences in how people explain inequality and respond to harm narratives.

Thau: The takeaway isn't "one side is right." It's that audience ideology is a contextual condition: the same signal plays differently across audiences. For communicators, that means reputational outcomes depend not only on message content but on who's listening.

Were there particular contexts where victim signaling was more socially costly?

Thau: The clearest professional cost appeared in selection decisions — assuming they generalize from our experiment to "the real world." In Study 4, a subtle signal ("experienced injustice") reduced the focal candidate's likelihood of being chosen for a leadership role, shifting votes to otherwise similar non-signalers. That's a tangible outcome if similar results occur in real-life contexts.

Aquino: In ongoing work settings, coworkers who frequently signal were rated as engaging in more counterproductive behaviors (Study 1). In more general social/business vignettes (Studies 2–3), signaling increased inferences of dark traits and expectations of unethical conduct, though magnitudes varied with ideology and signal strength. So, costs are visible both in everyday peer judgments and in gatekeeping decisions (Study 4)

Did you anticipate that signalers would be viewed more negatively overall — or did anything surprise you?

Aquino: We expected some cost because signaling asks others to absorb or redress harm. The surprise was the specificity: costs showed up as dark-trait inferences and leadership penalties. Yet average ratings were not caricatures; they hovered near midpoints. It's a subtle but consistent drag, not a character assassination.

Thau: Another surprise was the ideological flip in Study 3: among liberals, rejecting victim status sometimes backfired more than signaling it. That underscores that advice should be audience-sensitive; there's no one-size-fits-all reputational effect.

What advice would you offer to individuals who want to share experiences of adversity in a healthy, constructive way?

We have not tested this advice, but it seems reasonable given our knowledge of social influence and the results we obtained.

Thau:

• Be precise and verifiable where you can. Specific, checkable facts reduce the "is this a tactic?" inference.
• Pair the harm with agency. Explain what you're doing to address it; avoid making identity-as-harm your only calling card.
• Right-size the ask. Requests proportional to the audience's role and costs are less likely to trigger entitlement attributions.
• Frame toward solutions. Signal a path forward (e.g. learning, repair, prevention), not only grievance.

Aquino:

• Know your audience. In polarized contexts, the same message lands differently; tailor accordingly.
• Avoid global attributions. Sweeping claims (e.g. "People like you always…") invite backlash; describe the specific episode and impact.

Consider timing and channel. Private, dialogic settings can preserve dignity and reduce reputational spillovers compared to public blasts.